19 year old jailed for killing cyclist

[MartinC]

no, he's saying that a prison sentence isn't appropriate, that's very different to saying that the punishment is too harsh. For all you know he may harbour secret desires to see public flogging reinstated.

No. The post was "I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial."

 

[MacB]

No. The post was "I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial."

and that has since been qualified, I said some dorky things about all sorts 20 odd years ago, am I still to be defined only by those statements?

 

[MartinC]

Which still leaves the other 2 points.

 

[Crankarm]

Post #6

Post #6

I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial.

 

[Bad Company]

Why not? He was legally riding on the road, and she was obliged to pay due care and attention. She didn't and didn't see him until she hit him from behind.

Your response is that the sentence is harsh because it's a 70mph road, and the suggestion that the bike shouldn't have been there.

What does the speed limit on the road have to do with it?

I'll repeat. Controlling a car carries a huge responsibility, something which a disappointing proportion of drivers either dismiss or have forgotten.

I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.

I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.

 

[Crankarm]

There's hope for you yet then, unlike Cranky who's a lost cause

It is tiresome and depressing that the liberal leftie apologists are so disparaging and vindictive toward others who hold different views. In fact their manner reveals them to be nothing more than fascists .

 

[Bad Company]

It is tiresome and depressing that the liberal leftie apologists are so disparaging and vindictive toward others who hold different views. In fact their manner reveals them to be nothing more than fascists .

Hey I'm no liberal. My politics are to the right of 'Attila the Hun'.

 

[Crankarm]

I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.

I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.

BC she had close passed another cyclist prior to hitting Major Evans on his bike. She may even have been close passing or buzzing the cyclists deliberately and didn't realise how dangerous her actions were and came to prove. I have driven along the road that was being used many times. It is a wide dual carriageway with a shoulder and very easy to spot what is in front, leaving or joining the road. Her driving fell well below that of the competent and prudent driver as to be dangerous as the court found. The only contention now is the sentence given her.

 

[Crankarm]

Hey I'm no liberal. My politics are to the right of 'Attila the Hun'.

BC my comment wasn't directed at you if you look to my quote. And I've never noticed you being vindictive as some are.

 

[MacB]

BC my comment wasn't directed at you if you look to my quote. And I've never noticed you being vindictive as some are.

Ah, you'll get over it Cranky, coz you KNOW you're right

 

[Crankarm]

Ah, you'll get over it Cranky, coz you KNOW you're right

Glad we're in agreement then McB .

 

[Bad Company]

BC she had close passed another cyclist prior to hitting Major Evans on his bike. She may even have been close passing or buzzing the cyclists deliberately and didn't realise how dangerous her actions were and came to prove. I have driven along the road that was being used many times. It is a wide dual carriageway with a shoulder and very easy to spot what is in front, leaving or joining the road. Her driving fell well below that of the competent and prudent driver as to be dangerous as the court found. The only contention now is the sentence given her.

IF what you are suggesting about her 'buzzing' the cyclists was right I would agree that a long prison sentance would be well deserved as that would be a deliberate act.

Having said that I can see no evidence of this in any of the press articles on this so I have to assume that she was just foolish and did not pay adequate attention.

 

[Crankarm]

IF what you are suggesting about her 'buzzing' the cyclists was right I would agree that a long prison sentance would be well deserved as that would be a deliberate act.

Having said that I can see no evidence of this in any of the press articles on this so I have to assume that she was just foolish and did not pay adequate attention.

I think your interpretation is a lot little more charitable toward her than mine. I have some interest as probably about 20-25 years ago a former boss of mine was TTing along this road who was also knocked down, but left for dead. When he didn't come in at his allotted time and following riders hadn't seen him a few guys went back up the course and eventually found him lying unconscious in a ditch by the side of the carriageway with his head split open. He was rushed to hospital. Fortunately he survived but has a huge scar across the back of his skull to show. He can remember nothing. It turned out that a white van that had been buzzing a few of the cyclists along the route had actually hit my boss nearly killing him. They were caught and the driver jailed.

So obviously you cannot apply that situation to the current one but it must be a possibility given that Hart could offer no explanation as to why she close passed one cyclist and then just didn't see Major Rys Evans as she drove into him. I also saw footage of her attending court and she didn't look very contrite or devasted to me. One shot she appeared to have the beginnings of a smirk. Maybe this was down to her immaturity and being totally overwhelmed by the situation she had created. I don't know but certainly she could have given a much fuller explanation as to what she was doing as she drove along that road on that morning. But she would have been advised by weasel defence lawyers not to incriminate herself so we shall never really know whether her actions were deliberate or as has been found negligent to the point of being dangerous.

A very sad case indeed, as a man in his prime, who had served his country, needlessly lost his life and his family have been devastated.

 

[MartinC]

I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.

I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.

I disagree with the first point. Although we probably agree that a long sentence wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile to me it's still very important the the law recognises that a life has been taken and that this is a matter with very serious consequences. If can people arbiitrarily define circumstances where taking a life is of little consequence then the way is open for others to argue that they have the same option - hence the point about retaliation.

The issue of banning is to me about driving standards not necessarily criminal justice. To me it's unarguable that anyone who has shown that they drive so badly that people are killed should only ever get their licence back after lengthy suspension and retraining - if ever.

I still don't understand your point about dual carriageways, 70 limits and time trials. The original gist of the post seemed to me to be a classic piece of victim blaming. You may have reconsidered this but your first post is still striking and reflects, maybe not in a way intended, an attitude that I'd always challenge.

 

[Crankarm]

I disagree with the first point. Although we probably agree that a long sentence wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile to me it's still very important the the law recognises that a life has been taken and that this is a matter with very serious consequences. If can people arbiitrarily define circumstances where taking a life is of little consequence then the way is open for others to argue that they have the same option - hence the point about retaliation.

The issue of banning is to me about driving standards not necessarily criminal justice. To me it's unarguable that anyone who has shown that they drive so badly that people are killed should only ever get their licence back after lengthy suspension and retraining - if ever.

I still don't understand your point about dual carriageways, 70 limits and time trials. The original gist of the post seemed to me to be a classic piece of victim blaming. You may have reconsidered this but your first post is still striking and reflects, maybe not in a way intended, an attitude that I'd always challenge.

The risk that the law, a term I use loosely, is seen to be an ass and may allow for vigilantism or disatisfied victims or members of their family to take retaliatory action, or OTH for people to think there is little risk of detection or prosecution and even if they are caught, the penalty is only slight, so "Get out of my a*hole! I don't give a sh1t! "